I 'm not sure exactly what this was referring to, but it was Hillary Clinton who said

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

And imagine if it were the black candidate who had a pregnant 17-year-old daughter. Wouldn't we be hearing a lot more about decaying moral standards?

Yes--the fact that the elitists don't know what elitists are and don't recognize themselves is still very maddening.

Most people know that they are elitists. I know that I am one. Some people are just better at hiding it than others (I am not necessarily one of them, at least not in my private life).

Is saying that people cling to their guns and religion elitist? Damn right it is. But I also think that there is a truth behind that. Not just in that country of yours, it's true for for lots of regions on Earth. I would say the exact same thing about large portions of Bavaria - or the exclave of Bavaria in West-Northern-Germany (where I grew up). Well, except for the guns, that's kind of forbidden here, though we got those shooting match parties that are often the highlight of the year in rural areas. It's all about traditions, about strict Catholicism, about family - and I hate all of it as much as I love it.

Moving on. My opinion is that everyone is looking down on people in some way or another, especially politicians who consider themselves fit to lead an entire nation and therefore able to make decisions for millions of people. Some make flippant remarks - like Obama did - and others consider themselves morally superior - like Palin and McCain do. Of the remarks Obama made in the last week - this one was definitely my favourite, though he was heavily criticised for it

Originally Posted by Reuters

Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

That was a very honest answer. Loved it. Who do they think he is, the Pope? The scientists have no specific answer to that question, they really don't know, it's a definition that is yet to be made. And religion is in my opinion a private matter. Religion is not about facts, it's about emotions, feelings, instincts.

I don't understand people who have abortions. I probably wouldn't do it. And as a doctor-in-training I will be careful not to choose a career path where I would be responsible for these kind of procedures. But that's my personal opinion, I have no actual reasons for this opinion - and therefore I have no right to impose this opinion as a rule on others.

In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.
[...]
"I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society," she wrote, "we cannot condone ending an innocent's life."

The question is - isn't this opinion as elitist as everything Obama ever said? She thinks that she has the right to make this decision for every other woman in the country - because of what, because of her religion? What other reasons does she have? She repeatedly refered to religion in her pro-life statements, whether she was talking about her son or the general topic. So does she consider her religion superior to others or to atheism? Does she consider herself superior to these women who have to make that decision because she is somehow more qualified? Because e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism have no specific rules concerning abortion. There are Buddhists and Hinduists living in the US, aren't there? And lots of Jews, who also tend to be more lenient towards abortion. At this point I would like to quote Obama

Originally Posted by Obama

“Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” - Call to Renewal Keynote Address

Shouldn't these people have the right to make that demanding and life-changing decision on their own, according to their own faith? Same goes for stuff like gay-marriage.

And I suddenly realised that my reasoning is flawed. I hate it when that happens. The flaw is that if I continue this train of thoughts I won't find an end and therefore would at some point justify nihilism and anarchy.

But wait, I got back on track. Thing is that in an ideal laical world everyone can live as he / she wants to - as long as others don't suffer from that self-realisation. That's why suicide attempts are no longer chargeable. It is the woman's body, the embryo/fetus is part of her and therefore it is her decision. The decision to prohibit arbortion means that the government takes control of the woman's body. The government (or in this case McCain/Palin) thinks that they know better, because of God and blah blah blah - isn't that patronising? And it actually contradicts one of the general Republican themes, that they want "less government" that people "know what's good for them" and that Obama is going to widen the power of the goverment. It's not like pro-choice people want to force women to abort, they just want to give them the power to decide for themselves.

And talking about elitism, the following quotes are from the official McCain website (by the way, I think the German Google is partial to Obama - if you enter McCain you get the chips website, some other stuff and the 7th link is to his campaign website, if you enter Obama the very first link is his campaign website).

Originally Posted by McCain

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society

Heh. That's funny. We should send that to the Japanese or the Chinese (believe it or not, they do have families there too).

Do you know that McCain has Space exploration as a seperate issue on his website? Apparently it's important for your national pride. I made sure to check the Obama website before I made fun of it; he doesn't talk about Space exploration, just briefly mentions the moonlanding among scientific achievements. It's interesting how different the campaigns describe the importance of the moonlanding

Originally Posted by McCain

For the past 50 years, space activities have contributed greatly to US scientific discovery, national security, economic development, and national innovation, pride and power (the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon).

Originally Posted by Obama

At one time, educational competition with the Soviets fostered the creativity that put a man on the moon.

Less funny, on national security

Originally Posted by McCain

Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage
[...]
Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China.
[...]
Modernizing American armed forces involves procuring advanced weapons systems that will help rapidly and decisively defeat any adversary and protect American lives.

I hate that expression "American lives". It sounds as if they are special. Not just lives - but American lives. I know that expression is often used by many and that there is probably no intention to make it sound so - elitist. I am also no fan of his, in my opinion illusory, demand for American military supremacy though Obama has similar statements on his campaign website, they are just much more elegantly written and very well hidden. What Obama doesn't have are these jibes towards China and Russia, I think they are not necessary.

Honestly, have you read their statements (I know, these are written by specialists and just because they write it - they don't have to fulfil it) concerning National Security? E.g. McCain only talks about National Security, Veterans and Iraq, in rather general terms. Obama has these issues divided into Homeland Security, Defense, Veterans, Iraq and Foreign Policy. And these texts of course emphasise his elitist character, they are very detailed (Foreign Policy is actually a great read) and not that easy to understand.

Why doesn't McCain talk about Civil Rights? Is that no problem in his opinion? Obama talks seperately about Civil Rights, disabled people and women. Why doesn't McCain talk about poverty? Is that no problem among his voters? It actually makes me mad that both candidates are mostly grooming the middle class. Obama may talk about poverty and Civil Rights on his campaign website, but I wished that he would be more involved in supporting the lower class in real life. McCain has 18 issues, one of them concentrates exclusively on the 2nd Amendment (he is against any kind of ban, what a surprise) - but couldn't make space for one about Civil Rights or poverty? Then again, the 2nd Amendment is about Civil Rights - the right to bear a weapon and the right to get shot more likely than in any other first-world-country.

I think the problem with Obama's campaign site is that it is really fantastic, it is detailed, explained, well written, well structured - but if he can't fulfil those goals he will have some explaining to do. McCain's texts read more like a good ol' propaganda, when Obama talks about families he talks about sick days, about specific tax changes, afterschool opportunities, flexible work arrangements, nurse-family-partnerships... McCain basically says that he is going to protect the traditional family (read no gay-marriage - because otherwise the traditional families will be massacred by the non-traditional ones), he will make oil cheaper, the dollar stronger and homeownership easier, not many details given except for the homeownership part. If you don't talk about concrete goals - it doesn't hurt you much, if you don't fulfil them - there are much more ways to find excuses.

Plus Obama's site needs more colours, more bold writing, much more photos - all this subdued blue, white and grey is so wrong. He is probably too aloof and elitist to use these means. I mean, he had no balloons at his convention - can you believe it? Who does he think he is?

I actually would prefer it if he doesn't change too much during the next weeks, even if it means that he doesn't win. His chances are on the decline - he needs at least 5 to 8 points more than McCain in the polls, to balance the fact that in the real election some will decide to vote against him in the last moment. Nobody talks about it - but I think his campaign knows it, he knows it...

A 17 year old is pregnant. An only four month old has down syndrom. But she is running for VP campaign. I am wondering that whether she cares her children enough? Or whether she has time to care about her children? As a mother, I don't like the kind of mother she is.

Elections are way unpredictable, particularly this year. I would distrust anyone, including myself, if anyone claimed they knew how it is going to turn out.

A great deal of the philosophical content of Obama's website is cribbed from Edwards' website. Edwards was huge on detailed plans. I remember when Obama announced his poverty plan. It only included help for the poor in the cities.

Then Edwards put up his plan, which of course included the rural poor.

Suddenly Obama's website included the poor in the country.

I am old and cynical. And as you observed, websites are written by staffers. McCain is not a computer literate kind of guy. I doubt he has ever read his website, so the exact content of it does not distress me too much.
I suspect the NASA stuff is really something he likes, though. There's no reason a staffer would have thought of putting it there if the boss wasn't on that ship.

What we get from either of these guys will be nothing like the websites, which are there to collect money from the rabid base, in both cases and parties.

I 'm not sure exactly what this was referring to, but it was Hillary Clinton who saidAnd imagine if it were the black candidate who had a pregnant 17-year-old daughter. Wouldn't we be hearing a lot more about decaying moral standards?

If you ever read the entire transcript of the Obama comments in the 'clinging to guns and God' speech, it begins with a statement that everybody says it's just white guys who don't want to work and won't vote for a black guy, but Obama says this is not so....and then goes on to the more normally quoted portions.

Myself, if everybody Obama knows thinks white guys don't want to work, he is hanging around with the wrong guys.

As to Hillary, that was sad. The usual Democratic riff is "hard working Americans". However, it wasn't true in that election...you could see her figuring out that she couldn't say that ...she swapped over to "white Americans" because the hard working black Americans were not voting for her, so the statement would not have been true. It came out sounding very bad. I felt for her.

Yes, if it were a pregnant black teenager, I'm sure that the comments would have been nasty. But they were pretty nasty as is. It's just that the left and right swapped their usual lines. This time the right is being positive about the pregnant girl. If it were a black teenager, the left would be positive about the pregnant girl.

A 17 year old is pregnant. An only four month old has down syndrom. But she is running for VP campaign. I am wondering that whether she cares her children enough? Or whether she has time to care about her children? As a mother, I don't like the kind of mother she is.

Well, I wouldn't want my husband running for presidency (we have a 5-month old baby). However, men do not get criticized for running for office with small children, only women do. Other than breastfeeding, there is nothing that a mom can do that a dad cannot. Oh, and what does her daughter have to do with this anyway? Or you would expect Palin to quit her career to babysit her grandson?

So does she consider her religion superior to others or to atheism?

Unfortunately, "atheism" has become almost a swear word in America. People usually prefer to say they're "agnostic", as it doesn't sound so bad. I have a friend who is a Jewish atheist. He married a girl from a good Southern Baptist family. The girl, knowing her family very well, instructed him to talk as much as he wanted to about being Jewish, but to keep his atheist ideas to himself. Indeed, when years later they found out he did not believe in G-d, they were absolutely shocked! Back in 2000 presidential campaign, I was shocked when then VP candidate Lieberman said, "Constitution offers freedom of religion, not freedom from religion". :(

Thing is that in an ideal laical world everyone can live as he / she wants to - as long as others don't suffer from that self-realisation....

People like Mrs. Palin who are on the pro-life side of the question beleve that fetuses are babies. Just like babies of the out-of-the-womb persuation, fetuses deserve the protection of government.

There is really no argument against that belief except to say, well, no, I don't look at it that way.

Originally Posted by McCain

(the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon).

Originally Posted by Obama

At one time, educational competition with the Soviets fostered the creativity that put a man on the moon.

What's really funny -- or maybe not so funny -- is that, historically, McCain is right and Obama is wrong. The United States did not put a man of the moon because of "educational competition." It was to show those Commies who's boss, especially after Russia had to nerve to put up the Sputnik satellite to drop atom bombs on our heads.

Originally Posted by Medusa

(Obama's) chances are on the decline - he needs at least 5 to 8 points more than McCain in the polls, to balance the fact that in the real election some will decide to vote against him in the last moment. Nobody talks about it - but I think his campaign knows it, he knows it...

This is true. The opinion polls will show that Obama is in the lead right up to the very morning of the election. Then when people go into the privacy of the voting booth where they can say what they really think without risking public censure, it will be, "I wouldn't vote for that you-know-what if he were running against a monkey."

Originally Posted by Mathman

"McCain's biggest problem is that he is boring, even to the members of his own party.

Originally Posted by Ptichka

That is something I really do not understand. To me, McCain is one of the most exciting candidates this country has had for a very long time...

Well, personally McCain is not a fiery speaker or a charismatic rabble-rouser.

But what I really meant was, I do not find McCain's campaign very interesting because I do not see any major point on which his view differs from the policies of George Bush. I do not see McCain as doing anything more than parroting Bush on the Iraq War, on the economy and national fiscal policy, or on long term environmental concerns and energy independence. I do not see that McCain, any more than Bush, has noticed that people are losing their jobs, their retirement pensions, their life savings, their homes, their health care options.

True, McCain is not a smart-alecky twerp. I don't think that McCain would throw childish tantrums and try to "get even" with people who showed insufficient zeal in personal loyalty to himself as an individual. He seems like a sincere fellow and a sort-of nice guy. Still, an "exciting" candidate?

Yes, if it were a pregnant black teenager, I'm sure that the comments would have been nasty. But they were pretty nasty as is. It's just that the left and right swapped their usual lines. This time the right is being positive about the pregnant girl. If it were a black teenager, the left would be positive about the pregnant girl.

As far as I know no high-ranking democrat said anything against that young lady. And for the rest it was probably one big glee moment.

These glee-moments happen if the party and campaign is big on promoting traditional family values etc., talk about how only a man and a woman can be a real family (how are the statistical odds that this child will grow up in a real family?), is keen on keeping real sex-ed out off the schools (not talking about Palin here, McCain and Bush are both in favour of abstinence-talk)... I am sorry for the girl, but stuff happens.

Originally Posted by dorispulaski

I doubt he has ever read his website, so the exact content of it does not distress me too much.

So everything that Obama says is artfully dissected, even if he pronounces something wrong. But don't dare to take seriously what McCain says on his campaign website, that doesn't matter. He can lie, make dubious remarks about other cultures etc. I think I see the pattern here.

Originally Posted by Ptichka

Unfortunately, "atheism" has become almost a swear word in America.

What? How did that happen? Are Camus, Sartre, Jaspers and Schopenhauer out of print? We can lend you a few copies. Most young people I know read those authors at some point, become atheists - after two years about 60% revert back to to being indifferent, 20% are undecided and the rest sticks to atheism. Are these authors read at high school in the US? I had to read most of them in Religious Education (mandatory here till you turn 18 - how is that for decadence? Actually you can substitute it with Philosophy when you turn 14, but I sticked with RE, I loved it, we had such a great teacher) and some in French class.

Originally Posted by jennylovskt

A 17 year old is pregnant. An only four month old has down syndrom. But she is running for VP campaign. I am wondering that whether she cares her children enough? Or whether she has time to care about her children? As a mother, I don't like the kind of mother she is.

Could people stop talking about that? Who cares? There is much more interesting stuff to criticise, you know, stuff that actually matters.

Originally Posted by Mathman

What's really funny -- or maybe not so funny -- is that, historically, McCain is right and Obama is wrong.

But the Obama campaign site expressed it really nicely, that sentence is a thing of beauty.

Originally Posted by Mathman

This is true. The opinion polls will show that Obama is in the lead right up to the very morning of the election. Then when people go into the privacy of the voting booth where they can say what they really think without risking public censure, it will be, "I wouldn't vote for that you-know-what if he were running against a monkey."

And if he really looses the election I will from that day on refer to all of you (from the US) as Southern Canadians.

Well, I wouldn't want my husband running for presidency (we have a 5-month old baby). However, men do not get criticized for running for office with small children, only women do. Other than breastfeeding, there is nothing that a mom can do that a dad cannot. Oh, and what does her daughter have to do with this anyway? Or you would expect Palin to quit her career to babysit her grandson?

From my experience and from my observation to others, I find it hard to believe that if a mother cares about her daughter enough and spends enough time with her, and guides her, her daughter will ever get pregnant. Yes, I partially blame her for her daughter's pregnancy, despite her daughter is a rebellious aged girl. No matter how strong any one feel on the issue of woman's revolution, you cannot deny the different role that nature (if we don't say the God. I don't want to sound like too Palin) placed on human. As a mother, the first job that she has absolutely no excuse but to do is to be a good mother. I am from China (a Chinese Canadian who lives in US) - the place where is generally viewed as every tradition has been destroyed by the cultural revolution in the 60's, and the place where the women have the most respect and privilage in the society, at least equal, if not above the men. But that has made me rethink of the woman's revolution from another angle. It's just my opinion.

What we get from either of these guys will be nothing like the websites, which are there to collect money from the rabid base, in both cases and parties.

Still, one can't help but notice what the parties are pitching to their rabid bases and what kind of voters the respective sides hope to get contributions from.

Originally Posted by jennylovskt

From my experience and from my observation to others, I find it hard to believe that if a mother cares about her daughter enough and spends enough time with her, and guides her, her daughter will ever get pregnant.

If this is your experience, you have every reason to be grateful to whatever gods there be.

Well, I wouldn't want my husband running for presidency (we have a 5-month old baby). However, men do not get criticized for running for office with small children, only women do. Other than breastfeeding, there is nothing that a mom can do that a dad cannot. Oh, and what does her daughter have to do with this anyway? Or you would expect Palin to quit her career to babysit her grandson?

Unfortunately, "atheism" has become almost a swear word in America. People usually prefer to say they're "agnostic", as it doesn't sound so bad. I have a friend who is a Jewish atheist. He married a girl from a good Southern Baptist family. The girl, knowing her family very well, instructed him to talk as much as he wanted to about being Jewish, but to keep his atheist ideas to himself. Indeed, when years later they found out he did not believe in G-d, they were absolutely shocked! Back in 2000 presidential campaign, I was shocked when then VP candidate Lieberman said, "Constitution offers freedom of religion, not freedom from religion". :(

Well, Lieberman was right in a way... though I think he was trying to make more points (and probably did) with Constitutionalists than he did with the religious right who somehow have decided that republican stands for Christian (I quickly decided that it doesn't lol)

as for atheism being a bad word, I think that depends on where. Alaska, believe it or not, while it has a church on a lot of corners has a very proud anti-religion/God group of people that are extremely vocal... or just mention you're a Christian in a college science class the prof will go out of their way 90% of the time to belittle you in front of everyone. (I learned the hard way not to ask questions that even hinted of a religious background, they will eat you alive) It goes both ways and Christianity is quickly becoming just as hated, if not more so.

Interestingly enough the fastest growing religion in this country is Muslim/Islamic... or at least it was a couple years ago when I was taking a course that studying religion and journalism.

But what I really meant was, I do not find McCain's campaign very interesting because I do not see any major point on which his view differs from the policies of George Bush. I do not see McCain as doing anything more than parroting Bush on the Iraq War, on the economy and national fiscal policy, or on long term environmental concerns and energy independence. I do not see that McCain, any more than Bush, has noticed that people are losing their jobs, their retirement pensions, their life savings, their homes, their health care options.

Well, the big question is - which McCain will show up in Washington - the one we've seen over the past couple of decades, or the one we've seen on the campaign trail. I'd vote for the former but not the latter.

McCain's energy policy will be nothing like Bush's. To begin with, he's recognized the threat of global warming for a while, though his environmentalism is more of Freedman's "political" style (fine with me). McCain has long ridiculed Bush's ethanol fuel, recognizing that the way it has been put together has not benefited anyone except for the US corn producers. For now, McCain wants to build nuclear power plants to decrease US reliance on foreign oil. I agree. This is the path that Europe has long taken, and frankly I see this as the only reasonable solution for now. Renewable energy is still too far off to be truly counted on. Of course, McCain of the campaign trail is a different beast altogether. I couldn't believe he actually supported the gas tax holiday this summer...

Iraq war is an interesting question. However, it seems that, ironically enough, McCain would not differ too much from Obama on this at his point. BTW, to me his push for the Iraq war is a huge "negative" against his candidacy. OTOH, I believe that he would have managed the war differently, and it would not have been quite such a disaster (though I did not support this war in the first place).

Economy is another interesting one. The tax cuts McCain proposes actually make sense. The only caveat - they make sense if and only if Bush's tax cuts do not become permanent, which is something McCain has now promised. The two tax cuts together are, indeed, nonsense.

For the healthcare plan, I actually think it should be somewhere in the middle between the two candidates' proposals. Having spent some time on the hospital this year, I agree with McCain that America's healthcare problems will not be solved unless the cost issue is addressed. Some of McCain's proposals in that regard do make sense. OTOH, I agree with Obama on moving toward universal healthcare.

Another issue on which I am with McCain of yesteryear is dealing with illegal immigration. Then again, this is also the plan that Bush supported. And it is the plan that McCain no longer supports. Sigh...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, I am just trying to figure out which one is less unacceptable to me - the possibility of the Palin presidency, or the occupant of the White House who has attended the Church of Hate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk. Yes, I know this is a different discussion altogether, but I still cannot get over it. Yes, I know I do not always agree with my rabbi on everything, but I do not find anything he says morally reprehensible. If he said anything like "G-d damn America", you can be sure I'd never set foot in his shul again. And no, I do not think Obama shares Write's views - but that is almost beside the point, as him choosing to remain in that church for political reasons is almost as bad.

as for atheism being a bad word, I think that depends on where. Alaska, believe it or not, while it has a church on a lot of corners has a very proud anti-religion/God group of people that are extremely vocal... or just mention you're a Christian in a college science class the prof will go out of their way 90% of the time to belittle you in front of everyone

Well, academia is in its own separate bubble, like always. It is so liberal, they've had open letters for professors to sign advocating divestment of funds from Israel (don't ask me why it's a liberal thing, it just is), they largely think of for-profit work being inferior to the higher-idea one of academia, etc, etc, etc. So I seriously would not equate academia with America.

What? How did that happen? Are Camus, Sartre, Jaspers and Schopenhauer out of print? We can lend you a few copies.

At the risk of promoting the "dumb American" myth (which I do not in any way believe in myself) - the only one of the philosophers you mention that I encountered in high school was Camus - we read him in original in the Advanced Placement French class, after I along with a few other students went to the principal to complain that our French teacher did not teach us any French literature in the original except for some badly abridged pieces (I do not believe in abridged literature; I'd rather be reading simple children's books than abridged versions of good lit), and the teacher as a result decided to "punish" us by assigning something truly difficult to get through. But I enjoyed it nonetheless

At this point, I am just trying to figure out which one is less unacceptable to me - the possibility of the Palin presidency, or the occupant of the White House who has attended the Church of Hate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk. Yes, I know this is a different discussion altogether, but I still cannot get over it. Yes, I know I do not always agree with my rabbi on everything, but I do not find anything he says morally reprehensible. If he said anything like "G-d damn America", you can be sure I'd never set foot in his shul again. And no, I do not think Obama shares Write's views - but that is almost beside the point, as him choosing to remain in that church for political reasons is almost as bad.

Have you seen the church Palin attends? They belong to the same movement as the people profiled in the documentary "Jesus Camp," they want to to establish fundamentalist Christian law everywhere, and they want to start by taking over the US government. By force if necessary. I'd rather have a president with a Wright in his past than a vice president who sits listening to someone preach every Sunday that democracy must be overthrown if it is in the way of forcing everyone to live they way they want them to live.
Her church is also supporting a meeting for "Love Won Out," an "Ex Gay" group that unaccepting parents force their children to attend in the hope that it will make them not gay. These groups use tactics that are outright abusive. Not to mention I'm suspicious of her voluntary association with the group calling themselves Feminists for Life, which oppose not only abortion, but even birth control. If McCain is elected, we can say goodbye to hormonal birth control-already the Bush administration is working to legally define it as abortion.

Honestly, if this woman is elected, I will be desperate to get out of this country. After 2004 I remember reading an article in which someone observed that the democrats were all acting like an abused spouse, wondering what they had done wrong. If this country elects McCain, there will be no changing it. That's my view.

I am just trying to figure out which one is less unacceptable to me - the possibility of the Palin presidency, or the occupant of the White House who has attended the Church of Hate... Yes, I know this is a different discussion altogether, but I still cannot get over it. it nonetheless

This does not upset me. The good old-fashioned Jeremiad is part of a preacher's repertroire.

Three thousand years ago that other Jeremiah said, Woe unto you, oh Israel, you have forsaken the paths of righteousness. Mr. Wright is saying the same to America.